Not being overly negative here... I think we've had a fantastic season. I think we'll come back even stronger next year and if we avoid injuries, could well have a rematch against the Falcons only this time we have the home field advantage. The Seahawks are going in absolutely the right direction, I just think we'll come up short against a #1 seed, 13-3 team on the road. The reason...?

LACK OF PRESSURE ON MATT RYAN

I think we'll struggle, once again, to get pressure in base defense. I watched the Cardinals @ Falcons game and the one thing (only thing?) Arizona does well is pass rush. It amazes me that Ray Horton hasn't got the Cards' Head Coach gig simply to keep him as part of that franchise. They got at Ryan and forced mistakes. He's not too mobile, he likes to have time. Give him that time and he'll kill you - especially with the options he has at WR/TE. He threw FIVE interceptions against Arizona and scored no touchdowns. They scraped to victory 23-19 despite Arizona having 70 total passing yards in that game. The reason? Pass rush, pass rush, pass rush.

Unfortunately, we are nowhere near as effective rushing the passer. Our base defense generates almost no pressure at all and we don't blitz. Carroll and Bradley have barely blitzed all year and they aren't going to start now against a QB like Ryan. They'll be scared of getting burned - any coaching staff would have that fear blitzing Ryan with those receivers. I suspect it might be a case of 'which way are we least likely to get beat?' and they'll try and play bend but don't break. We've played some of the worst offensive lines in the NFL this year and dominated only once (vs Green Bay). Now we're going to try and dominate a decent enough line without our best pass rusher. That'll be very difficult.

Chris Clemons is a huge miss and although I like Bruce Irvin and believe he will grow into the NFL, I don't think is the game for him. Atlanta is really going to test his ability to defend the run early I fear, and if he struggles I think we'll see Scruggs playing more and more snaps as the game goes on. If we end up fielding a four man line of Bryant, Mebane, Branch and Scruggs more often than not - I don't like our chances of getting pressure on Ryan. Our best chance to do so might be to maybe lean to that side and put more pressure on Bryant to hold up his side of the bargain. We need to be in a position to keep Irvin on the field and he has to make the most of his chances.

I trust Russell Wilson and our offense to score points too and I don't think it's impossible for us to win a shoot-out. But that's the type of game I think it'll be, and it's not the type that suits us the best. Ryan is going to get time back there and however good Sherman/Browner and the other DB's are, they can't cover Julio Jones, Roddy White and Tony Gonzalez forever while Ryan sits in a clean pocket. I expect all three of their key playmakers, plus Ryan, to have a big day.

When Atlanta's lost playoff games in the past - Ryan has been pressured. New York last year, he had no time. Green Bay before that, the same. Against us I'm worried that won't be the case. So it'll be up to our offense to answer every call. It'll be up to the defense to see if they can bend but not break (tough vs Gonzalez in the red zone). But ultimately I think there's going to come a time in the second half where they edge ahead and pull away - something like 34-20 in the end.

Maybe the pressure on Ryan/Smith takes its toll? I just think this Falcons team is too good to keep bottling it. 0-4 in the playoffs? That would be some accomplishment given how talented they are. They'll be right on this one and if we're going to beat them, we'll have to do it with equally brilliant offense. I'd love Wilson to do it but I'm not expecting even he to do that.

Hope I'm completely wrong. I will happily eat crow if I am. I won't boast if I'm right. I want us desperately to win this game. But our biggest off-season priority has to be finding a better pass rush in base defense. If we get that in 2014, we have a shot at going 13-3 ourselves.

GREEDY PUNK PAUL ALLEN, THIS LOSS IS ON YOU."I don't give a crap WHAT you gotta pay, Kam is worth it and I don't want to lose a shot at another SB cuz you - a freaking BILLIONAIRE, are cheapskating Kam over a freaking $900,000.You cheapskate." SalishHawkFan SEP 13, 2015 1:47 PM

Completely agree. Without Clemons on the otherside, Irvin will become more of a focus for their protection. Everyone likes to use the GB game as a precident but we are just a pretty poor pass rushing team. However, if we can somehow make it happen and give constant pressure, game over.

We looked fantastic at the end of the game sending blitzes on Kirk Cousins even if he is a rookie. Now I doubt we send that type of heat every single down, but having Clemons out must make our coaches realize we need to get creative to get pressure, especially if we as fans can see it. Bruce and Scruggs really started coming hard in their base packages as well after Clem went down, directly at the QB not dancing outside, so maybe the light finally went on for Bruce?

If we don't get pressure I can see this game ending in 14+ point loss.... their passing game is full of allstars. But like you said, the Cards got pressure on Matty Ice and he isn't the same QB when that happens. He likes to force throws when his pocket is collapsing and that bodes very well for our ballhawking secondary if we can jump it. I imagine we will see Earl covering over the top on Browner's side for most of the game and hoping Sherm can do his thing 1 on 1.

I bet we are going to see a whole lot of Marshawn to help keep them off the field a la Giants versus Brady in both superbowls.

A great post, English. I think it's an extremely valid concern. I have a question -

You thought we would beat Washington, correct? How did you think we would fare against their run game?

I ask because I was EXTREMELY worried about how we would handle the Redskin running attack. We did have trouble, especially at first but in the end - the better TEAM won (despite the Hawks not playing their best game).

I HOPE a similar situation will arise on Sunday. I fear the Falcons passing attack, and our ability to get to Matt Ryan will go a long way to dictating the outcome of the game BUT the rest of the match-ups across the board favor the Seahawks, and my hope is that our own offensive will present enough problems that the better overall team (at this point in the year) wins.

I agree that we will lose this game if Matt Ryan isn't pressured and can pick and choose his targets at will. That said, we've still managed a way to keep close all year against some very good teams. If we solve this, we win.

I have a TON of faith in our defensive backfield though to make the passes that do get thrown as difficult as possible and the YAC attempts as painful as possible.

We have hardly blitzed all year, they've been saving till nowWith clem out we almost certainly see some new d wrinklesAll year we just rush four the majority of the time so tats what an opposing team plans for It should be simple to disguise with some of the formations we run

I totally agree with you. However, I think that this is where we find out how good Carroll and Bradley are at developing a specific game plan for an oponent, and addressing our weaknesses due to injury. Carroll has a rep for not being the best game coach; he's good, but it seems like we make decent halftime adjustments but sometimes we're caught off guard in the 1st quarter. Now, this could be due to youth, or it could be schematic. I'm not sure.

Thing is, you're right. If Ryan has all day back there, the best CBs aren't going to match up well against those WRs on the outside. We're not really a very good zone coverage team, as evidenced by Chicago. We played a zone on Marshall and he crushed us. Carroll has to trust his matchup on the outside with his CBs, and throw the kitchen sink up the A gaps at Ryan, then deal with Gonzalez and Douglas in the slot. This could work, like you said English, we haven't blitzed much all year. If we come out looking like the Cardinals, it's going to take them by surprise. If we can get up by a couple of TD's, then it's going to be fine if they burn us a couple of times and try to catch up, we can withstand the storm.

If we can't gameplan without Clemons, then we wouldn't have won the SB anyways. Losing one guy is big, but he's not Sherman, Thomas, or Browner. Hell, we made it without Browner.

I say we bring the house on blitzes until the Falcons prove they can beat it. If it works keep doing it. If not bring out the Bandit!

You've got to be willing to go against the tide. You've got to be be willing to harness your will and say In spite of this I'm in control here! I'm coming back and I'll be stronger and better because of it!- Les Brown

However, I will be cheering my ass off, hoping that Bruce Irvin stepping up to Clemons' role, and Patrick Championship stepping up in Irvin's, will be enough to get that pressure we need to win the game.

"The ultimate number is W's, and that’s what matters in Santa Clara. As such, Jed York does not own the 49ers; Russell Wilson does." - Paul Gutierrez

mistaowen wrote:We looked fantastic at the end of the game sending blitzes on Kirk Cousins even if he is a rookie. Now I doubt we send that type of heat every single down, but having Clemons out must make our coaches realize we need to get creative to get pressure, especially if we as fans can see it. Bruce and Scruggs really started coming hard in their base packages as well after Clem went down, directly at the QB not dancing outside, so maybe the light finally went on for Bruce?

If we don't get pressure I can see this game ending in 14+ point loss.... their passing game is full of allstars. But like you said, the Cards got pressure on Matty Ice and he isn't the same QB when that happens. He likes to force throws when his pocket is collapsing and that bodes very well for our ballhawking secondary if we can jump it. I imagine we will see Earl covering over the top on Browner's side for most of the game and hoping Sherm can do his thing 1 on 1.

I bet we are going to see a whole lot of Marshawn to help keep them off the field a la Giants versus Brady in both superbowls.

Here's the thing though - we as fans see a heavy blitz against a rookie backup who enters the game in the fourth quarter trailing by ten points. We then see the blitz having success. If we tried that tactic against Matt Ryan, you're essentially saying - get to the QB or we're going to get burned. No grey area there. Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Matt Ryan - these guys WANT you to blitz. Kirk Cousins doesn't know what he wants as a rookie backup.

We as fans can say, 'well that worked'. But there's a reason why the coaches are sticking with the four man rush. We're not leaving ourselves open to the big play and if we do create pressure we have a lot of opportunistic players in position to capitalise. I have no doubt that we'll continue doing this against Atlanta, hoping that we get the occasional stop and keep them to three points on drives rather than seven. And we want to play our offensive scheme and score more points than them. That's how we'll look at it. That absolutely has to be the game plan. If they go this way and we lose I won't complain because I don't think the alternative of blitz, blitz, blitz will work any better. I think we'll be destroyed doing that.

Maybe they do get creative on some select plays? The thing is, who do you blitz? I think our LB's need to sit in coverage. Earl needs to stay deep and help out the corners. Kam needs to watch Gonzalez. I'm not sure they have many options here.

And one other thing I think may be our downfall - the corner/safety blitz from their defense. They use it a LOT. Washington had success with it last week. Could be an issue.

BlueTalons wrote:I say we bring the house on blitzes until the Falcons prove they can beat it. If it works keep doing it. If not bring out the Bandit!

It'll be a long day if we do this IMO.

Last edited by theENGLISHseahawk on Thu Jan 10, 2013 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yep. Pressure is going to be a big part of it. I hope Pete and Gus get really super creative with trying to bring the pressure and that we see Jeron Johnson on the field more. I'm amazed at how fast he got into the backfield on that blitz against Washington. We might be thin on pass rushing DE's, but we're super deep when it comes to speedy DB's. Perhaps we revisit the bandit look from seasons past as a means to generate some pass rush. You remember, the scheme that gave a 37y/o Lawyer Milloy a 4 sack season in 2010? I'd like that.

SirTed wrote:You thought we would beat Washington, correct? How did you think we would fare against their run game?

I ask because I was EXTREMELY worried about how we would handle the Redskin running attack. We did have trouble, especially at first but in the end - the better TEAM won (despite the Hawks not playing their best game).

I HOPE a similar situation will arise on Sunday. I fear the Falcons passing attack, and our ability to get to Matt Ryan will go a long way to dictating the outcome of the game BUT the rest of the match-ups across the board favor the Seahawks, and my hope is that our own offensive will present enough problems that the better overall team (at this point in the year) wins.

I actually thought we would lose against Washington (I sound really negative today!!!). I too shared fears about the Skins run game. I thought they'd do a lot of what they did in the first quarter and I was very surprised they seemed to go away from the run despite leading well into the fourth quarter. They basically put the game on a very injured RGIII. I also underestimated just how injured Griffin was.

On the other hand, I thought we played some superb balanced football after a bad start and left a lot of points on the field. If our offense plays with the same level of efficiency and converts more, we have a chance to win a shoot-out vs Atlanta. But I do think it'll be a shoot out.

One thing to remember about the NFL - usually the obvious things we "think" are going to happen don't end up working out that way. It's kind of funny.

For example, remember how we were supposed to destroy the Cards and Rams suspect offensive lines in our first match-ups? Yeah, that didn't happen.

Pressure has been a huge problem all season long, and yet we have won six in a row and are a win away from the NFC Championship game.

One thing this team has learned how to do is win by making up for problems in other areas. Earlier in the season when our offense was BLECH, our defense was the key. Before Wilson really caught fire, Beast Mode was the key. Now we have a total team that wins by adhering to the axiom if holism - the "whole is better than the sum of it's parts".

I agree that it's a concern, but I'm not ready to concede that it means we will lose.

Last edited by FlyingGreg on Thu Jan 10, 2013 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

RolandDeschain wrote:Road, schmoad. Matt Ryan was a much better QB on the road this year than at home. Bottom line, we beat Brady without much pressure.

We also lost to much poorer QB's on the road (Tannehill, Stafford) due to a lack of pressure. If you won't to ignore this and just presume we'll be fine, that's fine by me. Just trying to raise a valid concern and have a discussion about it. I don't think 'we beat Brady by one point in a completely different situation' is enough of a counter though.

I'm not presuming we'll be fine, I just think this team is used to finding ways to win without much QB pressure. I want a lot of QB pressure, but we're probably one of the least pressure-dependent defenses in the NFL. Not getting QB pressure does not automatically spell doom for us. IMO, if we lose this game, it's going to be because of short passes over the middle & quick slants, and Gonzalez will have a big day.

Wagner is fast enough to get pressure up the middle, and, let's face it, it's not like our linebacking crew stays glued to the middle of the field very often anyway.

I also think the lack of concern about the Atlanta game means we load up on passing packages. I wouldn't be surprised to see us dare them to run on constant passing fronts. Or, even if you want, you just tell Branch and Bryant to stay in the game and play the run, everyone else plays the pass until Turner proves he can move worth a damn.

Barthawk wrote:well... pressure won't be as necessary when we possess the ball 35 minutes of the game by running it effectively.. that is the key to beating ATL, not pressure, but our running game..

we run the ball like we have most of the season, we win... simple..

I wish this was true. Not saying we cannot be a force with the run, but they are going to have the football too. And if Matt Ryan scores quick points in the passing game, we're not necessarily going to be able to run... run... run... all day from behind.

Zebulon Dak wrote:It will not surprise me in the least if we win this game.

I will not be surprised either. This thread is just a different angle on the game and my two cents on something that worries me a little.

This game is new territory for the 2012 Seahawks. Imagine the New England/Detroit games, but against an even better trio of primary targets. Welker/Lloyd/Gronk and Megatron/Young/Pettigrew aren't as ominous to me as Young/Jones/Gonzalez. In those other two games, it came down to the wire, and to Russell Wilson. We lost one of them.

I stand my prediction of Detroit scoring at least four touchdowns on us. Wilson and Lynch will have to match him. That's where our best chance lies, as Atlanta is said to have just the kind of soft defense that Lynch eats for dinner.

What a bunch of negative posts. I gaurantee you that Wilson will be very motivated to amend for what I am sure he considers a meager performance last weeked. We are going to demorilize their D! I think their jaw will be dropped on the sidelines when we start pulling away from them on the scoreboard and their offence will then get desperate for big strikes and a turnover or 2 will rear its ugle head for the Falcons.The game is the Hawks to lose not the the Falcons to win...

Last edited by scakfan on Thu Jan 10, 2013 2:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mistaowen wrote:We looked fantastic at the end of the game sending blitzes on Kirk Cousins even if he is a rookie. Now I doubt we send that type of heat every single down, but having Clemons out must make our coaches realize we need to get creative to get pressure, especially if we as fans can see it. Bruce and Scruggs really started coming hard in their base packages as well after Clem went down, directly at the QB not dancing outside, so maybe the light finally went on for Bruce?

If we don't get pressure I can see this game ending in 14+ point loss.... their passing game is full of allstars. But like you said, the Cards got pressure on Matty Ice and he isn't the same QB when that happens. He likes to force throws when his pocket is collapsing and that bodes very well for our ballhawking secondary if we can jump it. I imagine we will see Earl covering over the top on Browner's side for most of the game and hoping Sherm can do his thing 1 on 1.

I bet we are going to see a whole lot of Marshawn to help keep them off the field a la Giants versus Brady in both superbowls.

Here's the thing though - we as fans see a heavy blitz against a rookie backup who enters the game in the fourth quarter trailing by ten points. We then see the blitz having success. If we tried that tactic against Matt Ryan, you're essentially saying - get to the QB or we're going to get burned. No grey area there. Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Matt Ryan - these guys WANT you to blitz. Kirk Cousins doesn't know what he wants as a rookie backup.

We as fans can say, 'well that worked'. But there's a reason why the coaches are sticking with the four man rush. We're not leaving ourselves open to the big play and if we do create pressure we have a lot of opportunistic players in position to capitalise. I have no doubt that we'll continue doing this against Atlanta, hoping that we get the occasional stop and keep them to three points on drives rather than seven. And we want to play our offensive scheme and score more points than them. That's how we'll look at it. That absolutely has to be the game plan. If they go this way and we lose I won't complain because I don't think the alternative of blitz, blitz, blitz will work any better. I think we'll be destroyed doing that.

Maybe they do get creative on some select plays? The thing is, who do you blitz? I think our LB's need to sit in coverage. Earl needs to stay deep and help out the corners. Kam needs to watch Gonzalez. I'm not sure they have many options here.

And one other thing I think may be our downfall - the corner/safety blitz from their defense. They use it a LOT. Washington had success with it last week. Could be an issue.

BlueTalons wrote:I say we bring the house on blitzes until the Falcons prove they can beat it. If it works keep doing it. If not bring out the Bandit!

It'll be a long day if we do this IMO.

It's only a long day if you keep doing it and it doesn't work....

You've got to be willing to go against the tide. You've got to be be willing to harness your will and say In spite of this I'm in control here! I'm coming back and I'll be stronger and better because of it!- Les Brown

Zebulon Dak wrote:It will not surprise me in the least if we win this game.

I will not be surprised either. This thread is just a different angle on the game and my two cents on something that worries me a little.

I think your points are very valid. I also think that, as Roland mentioned, this team seems to find ways to win, even when things aren't working out as planned (see Marshawn's scoop & run or Wilson's misread & run up the gut). I agree our pass rush could suffer with the loss of Clem (although I am exited to see what Brucifer can do at full time Leo), and that pressuring Ryan would be a very helpful way to limit the Falcons offense. I believe we can win this game, consistent pass rush or not.

Number one. I don't think Pete is unaware of the need for pressure. The video suggests Matt Ryan struggles when pressured. Pete will have some stuff planned.Number two. The pass pro for the Falcons is not great up the middle. Neither is the run blocking. There is a good chance, IMO, we will see Seattle's tackles have good push. I think that matters more with a pocket climber like Ryan than edge pressure from Irvin.

I respect your post, English. I was feeling this way earlier. But the matchups just favor us in too many areas. The Falcons D has lived by the turnover. We don't turn the ball over much, especially the last ten games. The Falcons run defense is turrible.

scakfan wrote:What a bunch of negative posts. I gaurantee you that Wilson will be very motivated to amend for what I am sure he considers a meager performance last weeked. We are going to demorilize their D! I think their jaw will be dropped on the sidelines when we start pulling away from them on the scoreboard and their offence will then get desperate for big strikes and a turnover or 2 will rear its ugle head for the Falcons.The game is the Hawks to lose not the the Falcons to win...

If you just want to read posts that talk about how amazing we are and how much the Falcons suck (they don't), then why open a thread with this title?

RolandDeschain wrote:Anybody else think this game is a prime opportunity to start blitzing a lot?

There's a reason PC and DB (and a lot of defensive coaches) don't blitz much against top QB's. It'll never be a prime opportunity to blitz Matt Ryan.

You simply have to get pressure on Ryan without the blitz. I don't have the stats on me, but I know this year he's had something like a 96.1 rating against the blitz. I'm actually curious as to how good he's been in years past, too.

We just gotta play our game, pound them with the run and the bend but don't break D.

I think it was Mark Schlereth that said Seattle was one of the best teams at creating an organic pass rush. Which implies good play from our secondary and running more stunts, twists and forcing the oline to react to changing assignments. This article was pretty interesting on how teams like us without a JJ Watt create pressure without blitzing much.

mistaowen wrote:We looked fantastic at the end of the game sending blitzes on Kirk Cousins even if he is a rookie. Now I doubt we send that type of heat every single down, but having Clemons out must make our coaches realize we need to get creative to get pressure, especially if we as fans can see it. Bruce and Scruggs really started coming hard in their base packages as well after Clem went down, directly at the QB not dancing outside, so maybe the light finally went on for Bruce?

If we don't get pressure I can see this game ending in 14+ point loss.... their passing game is full of allstars. But like you said, the Cards got pressure on Matty Ice and he isn't the same QB when that happens. He likes to force throws when his pocket is collapsing and that bodes very well for our ballhawking secondary if we can jump it. I imagine we will see Earl covering over the top on Browner's side for most of the game and hoping Sherm can do his thing 1 on 1.

I bet we are going to see a whole lot of Marshawn to help keep them off the field a la Giants versus Brady in both superbowls.

Here's the thing though - we as fans see a heavy blitz against a rookie backup who enters the game in the fourth quarter trailing by ten points. We then see the blitz having success. If we tried that tactic against Matt Ryan, you're essentially saying - get to the QB or we're going to get burned. No grey area there. Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Matt Ryan - these guys WANT you to blitz. Kirk Cousins doesn't know what he wants as a rookie backup.

We as fans can say, 'well that worked'. But there's a reason why the coaches are sticking with the four man rush. We're not leaving ourselves open to the big play and if we do create pressure we have a lot of opportunistic players in position to capitalise. I have no doubt that we'll continue doing this against Atlanta, hoping that we get the occasional stop and keep them to three points on drives rather than seven. And we want to play our offensive scheme and score more points than them. That's how we'll look at it. That absolutely has to be the game plan. If they go this way and we lose I won't complain because I don't think the alternative of blitz, blitz, blitz will work any better. I think we'll be destroyed doing that.

Maybe they do get creative on some select plays? The thing is, who do you blitz? I think our LB's need to sit in coverage. Earl needs to stay deep and help out the corners. Kam needs to watch Gonzalez. I'm not sure they have many options here.

And one other thing I think may be our downfall - the corner/safety blitz from their defense. They use it a LOT. Washington had success with it last week. Could be an issue.

BlueTalons wrote:I say we bring the house on blitzes until the Falcons prove they can beat it. If it works keep doing it. If not bring out the Bandit!

It'll be a long day if we do this IMO.

I agree we most likely will see them sticking with base rushes but I wouldn't be shocked if we see more creative schemes. There will be a drop off in play at the Leo position purely from a lack of experience, so I think we should see more assisted pressure from Bruce's side of the field, maybe 5 man rushes. Blitzing constantly would ultimately lead to our loss 9 times out of 10, but we HAVE to get pressure on 3rd downs and if this means more blitzes I think I would be for that. You cannot ask a secondary to stick with Julio Jones/Roddy White/Tony Gonzalez for 6+ seconds the entire game.

The thing I am more excited about is the 'idea' of playing less zone coverage since Matt Ryan doesn't run out of the pocket very often. I am hoping we can line up in man coverage and jam the hell out of their WR's to compensate for the potential of a lesser pass rush. Watching us sit back in soft zones the past few games against mobile quarterbacks has been painful but I understand the need to do it. I am praying the lack of mobility Ryan has will allow our defense to stay away from zones, but who knows how Gus will call the game.

Our offense being able to sustain long drives will be huge on Sunday. If we have to get in a shootout I don't like our chances. Lots of Marshawn with the read option will make me happy.

Who knows, maybe Irvin will come out and play the best game of his career.

I agree with English to a certain extent - all of the teams that have had success against the potent passing offenses, like the two Giants SB winners, have been able tp get pressure with rushing 4 and dropping the rest into coverage. Look what happened when we managed that against GB. We probably are able to cover for a second or two longer than the average secondary, but we still need to get to the QB eventually.

I don't think we change what has worked and got us this far though. I think both sides will move the ball, and whether we win or not will depend upon our red zone D. I think a short field suits our D more than most, and we can sell out for the pass whilst still being confident in our ability to stop the run. Tbat is ths key here - if the Falcons pose little threat on the ground, then I think we wi . Since our O hit stride and we started scoring points, I think we beat any team with a one-dimensional offense. I'd say this is pick 'em rather than make the Falcons favourites.

RolandDeschain wrote:Anybody else think this game is a prime opportunity to start blitzing a lot?

Why we will win if we play Blitz...wait...

You've got to be willing to go against the tide. You've got to be be willing to harness your will and say In spite of this I'm in control here! I'm coming back and I'll be stronger and better because of it!- Les Brown